SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1995 Supreme(SC) 408

A. M. AHMADI, K. S. PARIPOORNAN, S. P. BHARUCHA
N. Rathinasabapathy – Appellant
Versus
K. S. Palaniappa Kandar – Respondent


JUDGMENT

This appeal is directed against the order passed by the High Court of Madras in Contempt Application No. 140 of 1985 whereby the Court came to the conclusion that the appellants herein had committed contempt of Court under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act. 1971 and sentenced each of the appellants to undergo simple imprisonment for two weeks. The matter arose out of an ad-interim injunction issued by the Court in the following terms:

"Interim injunction for three weeks. Notice three weeks."

2. The order which was communicated to the appellants also stated that the injunction was limited to the period of three weeks. Indisputably, the period of three weeks for which the injunction was granted was not extended by the Court. After the expiry of the period of three weeks, since there was no extension of the injunction, the appellants proceeded with the construction and completed the same. The High Court, while holding the appellants guilty of contempt observed as under:

"In the instant case, the respondents waited for three weeks from the date of the order, after service of notice in this application and indulged thereafter in continuing the construction without giving any





Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top